The problem is that the "agile" of the Agile Manifesto is underspecified to the point of uselessness. I'll quote the Manifesto in full:
We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it
and helping others do it. Through this work, we have come to value:
Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
Working software over comprehensive documentation
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
Responding to change over following a plan
That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value
the items on the left more.
That's it. That's all the manifesto gives us. In a real sense, any methodology at all is "not agile", since agile values individuals and interactions over processes and tools. But while that might work for a small team, it's a recipe for disaster in any kind of larger organization.
Right. which is why I argue that it is important to quit referring to "Capital 'A' Agile" as though it's an actual methodology in and of itself. Agile really just refers to a family of (loosely) related methodologies which purport to adhere to those principles to varying degrees, and where different methodologies make more sense in different settings. Collapsing all of this discussion under the umbrella of "Agile" elides the point that there actually are different approaches for different kinds of organizations, and different projects.
